Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MID-WESSEX WATER BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the services of officers experienced with the British Expeditionary Force in the present war are being utilised in the branch of the War Office and on general headquarters, home forces, responsible for the administration of the Local Defence Volunteers?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the recent appointment of an Inspector-General of the Local Defence Volunteers, every endeavour will be made to ensure that the subordinate staff working under him are selected from those who have special knowledge of the requirements of the Local Defence Volunteers in country areas, since many areas have special problems occasioned by their geographical position?

Mr. Eden: The principle advocated by my hon. Friend has been applied, and General Pownall has now appointed on his staff a liaison officer in each command with local knowledge. This will, I trust, result in the smooth working which my hon. Friend and I both desire.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the possibility that this subject has been approached from the wrong angle and that still more is required? I

welcome what he said, but would he see that the right men with local knowledge are given every opportunity of utilising that local knowledge?

Mr. Eden: I had that fact in mind when making these arrangements, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.

Mr. De la Bère: Would my right hon. Friend look at the Opinion column in the "Daily Express" this morning, in which there are some very apt suggestions?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not military knowledge useful as well as local knowledge?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the best men are the men of the International Brigade, but that attempts have been made to keep them out?

Mr. Cocks: Will the liaison officers get in touch with the county surveyors who have knowledge of the districts?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, whilst recognising that the requirements of the Army and the Local Defence Volunteers must first be satisfied, he will consider issuing arms, as they become available, to ex-service men between the ages of 40 and 55 years, and to the inhabitants of lonely farmhouses and isolated residences?

Mr. Eden: It is open to all men between the ages of 17 and 65 to apply to join the Local Defence Volunteers to whom arms are being issued.

Mr. Cocks: But the Secretary of State is surely aware that many ex-servicemen are not able to do that, and would the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?

Mr. Eden: The arms which are available should clearly in the first instance be made available for the organised bodies.

Mr. Cocks: While I realise that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to deal with the others when the arms are available?

Mr. Eden: I cannot give any undertaking about that at this stage.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that


Mr. Jack White, British-born Jew and holder of the Victoria Cross, was expelled from the Manchester Local Defence Volunteers on the grounds that his father, who came to this country from Russia 50 years ago, was not naturalised; and whether he will take steps to prevent such discrimination, which is calculated to prevent the best qualified recruits being obtained?

Mr. Eden: Under present rules, a man whose father was foreign, and did not become a naturalised British subject, is ineligible to join the Local Defence Volunteers, but I agree that this rule should be relaxed in cases such as that referred to in the Question, and I am giving instructions in this sense.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that even in cases where a person has not won the V.C. the anomaly exists?

Mr. Eden: I do realise it; that is why I am issuing the instruction.

Mr. G. Strauss: Can the Minister issue an instruction that any man who served in the last war should be eligible?

Mr. Eden: That is the basis I have in mind; but, clearly, I must look into the matter carefully.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give such instructions, through the chief signal officers or otherwise, as will result in all available Post Office resources being used to equip all Local Defence Volunteers observation posts with permanent telephone connection with main telephone exchanges at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Robert Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Local Defence Volunteer force was informed by the county commander at Stafford that they could arrange to have a telephone fixed in their headquarters, but that when they did so the Post Office officials came and took it away on instructions from the War Office that such telephones were not to be fixed; what is the policy of the Department with regard to the use of telephones under these circumstances; and whether he will state the objections to the installation of such a telephone at this headquarters?

Mr. Eden: I am making inquiries as to what took place at Stafford, but I have already received a report that the telephone has now been restored. Arrangements are being made generally for the necessary telephone facilities.

Sir R. Acland: Would it be possible to give instructions to members of the Local Defence Volunteer Force as to what procedure they should follow if they want to get a telephone? I have a feeling that they do not know what to do.

Mr. Eden: Arrangements are being made.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the official announcement of Government policy in the broadcast made by the Lord President of the Council, that in case of an invasion it is intended to fight the Germans in every village and in every home, he will take steps to place every village in a state of defence?

Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend has already been informed, local defences must be organised in relation to the defence of the country as a whole.

Mr. Cocks: If it is a fact that we are to fight in every village, should not every village be fortified?

Mr. Eden: Not necessarily. We can fight without fortifications. My hon. Friend may remember that Sparta had no wall.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is not the Minister aware that there are thousands of volunteers all over the country who are getting disheartened because they have nothing to fight with?

Mr. Eden: The fact that there is nobody to fight against is not my responsibility.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he contemplates requiring civil servants, municipal clerks and employés, etc., to take their share of Local Defence Volunteer and unpaid air-raid precautions work?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): In view of the very satisfactory response for Local Defence Volunteers, no measure of compulsion is contemplated. As regards the Civil Defence services, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply


given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 4th July.

Colonel Wedgwood: Did that reply refer specifically to the Civil Service, because if there is a lack of men for the A.R.P. services, might they not draw on civil servants?

Mr. Attlee: My reply dealt with the question of compulsion. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to put a further Question, he should put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Home Security.

COAL STOCKS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department is complying with the request of the Mines Department that maximum stocks of coal should be laid in forthwith?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

ACCOMMODATION, LIME STREET STATION, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Logan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Young Men's Christian Association has taken a suite of rooms in the North Western Hotel, Lime Street, as a canteen and hostel for men of His Majesty's Services, and that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company are charging £200 per year rental; and, in view of the need for this amenity for the troops, whether he will take steps to get this service free of rental?

Mr. Eden: The Young Men's Christian Association is occupying part of the hotel as a canteen and hostel for men of His Majesty's Forces, but the question of rent is not yet settled. The general question of rent for railway premises used for welfare purposes is now under discussion.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as my information goes, the question of renting is settled and that two other bodies in Liverpool are giving accommodation free? Is it not possible to make an arrangement whereby the soldiers can get free access to these places?

Mr. Eden: I have made inquiries, and information may be given shortly. When I receive any further information I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the rental is fixed, and that the question under consideration is the exemption of rates?

Mr. Eden: I am told that they are still arguing about them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there should be no argument at all, and should not these men be provided with amenities on the stations?

WORKS AND DOCKS (SAFEGUARDING).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, to safeguard vital works and docks, he will take steps to require persons, including casual labour, employed at such places to produce national registration identity cards marked by the police vouching as far as possible their bona fides for employment as such vital places?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not in the national interest to make a public statement on this subject.

Mr. Etherton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of excluding certain Communist elements from this kind of work?

APPOINTMENTS, WAR OFFICE.

Captain Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of officers holding appointments at the War Office have experience gained in the present war of serving overseas with one of the Expeditionary Forces; and what proportion of these have had actual experience in active operations?

Mr. Eden: It is impossible for me without a considerable inquiry, which would not be justified, to give the percentages. But the House may be assured that full use is being made at the War Office and in Home Commands generally of officers who have had recent experience in active operations.

FIELD-MARSHAL LORD MILNE.

Captain Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the purpose of the appointment of Field-Marshal Lord Milne as Colonel-Commandant, Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps; and whether this appointment entitles the holder to any additional pay or allowances?

Mr. Eden: The appointment of a Colonel-Commandant to the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps follows the precedent of similar appointments in other corps, and I am sure that all ranks of the corps are much encouraged and gratified by the appointment of such a distinguished officer as Lord Milne. The appointment is honorary and carries no emoluments other than a limited entitlement to travelling allowances.

Captain Bellenger: While I have no wish to under-rate the distinguished services of this officer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the age limit of recruitment of the lower ranks in that corps, he will give an opportunity for those of a humbler station in life to offer their services in the corps?

Mr. Eden: Everybody in the Army, I am sure, knows that these appointments of Colonel-Commandant are honorary positions. Lord Milne is already the Commandant of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, and I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that one telegram, received since the announcement, reads as follows:
On behalf of all ranks of the 14th Corps A.M.P.C. I thank you for your most inspiring and encouraging message. I assure you we are all behind you to pull our weight on British soil as we did in France.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a fact that although Lord Milne is old in years, he is young in spirit?

BRASSARDS.

Captain Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that staff brassards were not universally adopted by headquarters of formations serving overseas; and whether he will give orders to discontinue the present practice of wearing these insignia in public places?

Mr. Eden: I am aware that brassards were not worn on all occasions by staff officers in formations overseas. Arm bands, however, serve a very useful purpose when staff officers visit other headquarters or troops on duty. I am examining the question whether they should be worn in public places by officers when not on duty.

Captain Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there should be any attempted landings either from the air or from the sea, these staff officers

showing their staff insignia would probably be the first to be attacked by the enemy?

HOSPITAL-DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TRAVELLING).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers discharged from hospital have to report to their depôts in distant places before going on leave to their homes in London or Liverpool; that this entails loss of time and unnecessary expense; and whether other arrangements will be made to obviate so much travelling for the men affected?

Mr. Eden: I am having this matter examined with a view to the elimination of avoidable travelling.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that when the soldiers are discharged from hospital they are not sent to a convalescent home?

Mr. Eden: I imagine that my hon. Friend means a later stage, when they have finished with the convalescent home.

WOUNDED MEN (RELATIVES' TRAVELLING PASSES).

Sir R. Young: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the relatives of seriously wounded men in distant hospitals receive free travelling passes and whether the relatives of less seriously wounded men receive passes at a reduced rate; if so, what is the percentage reduction on railway fares; and whether all regimental pay offices, or the authorities dealing with this matter, make the same percentage reductions?

Mr. Eden: When a man is reported dangerously ill in hospital, two persons, one of whom must be a relative, may travel to visit him on free warrants. If the man is in hospital but not reported dangerously ill, his wife and children under 16 years of age, or, if he is unmarried, his parents, brothers and sisters, may use concession vouchers which enable them to make the return journey at single fare, whatever the distance.

Sir R. Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these reduced fares are entirely beyond the power of the soldier's wife to pay?

Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible to provide that when the distance from home is over a certain length these free passes might be granted?

Mr. Eden: They are, of course, granted in all cases when a man is dangerously ill. I think that limit would be rather a difficult one to draw.

WOUNDED AND MISSING SOLDIERS.

Mr. Joel: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in announcing to relatives those soldiers who are missing, he will consider subsequently supplying them with a leaflet explaining the procedure for tracing wounded and missing?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. In order that relatives of missing Service men may receive an assurance that everything possible is being done, I am having a leaflet prepared explaining the steps that are taken to trace them. It is being drafted with the assistance of the Wounded, Missing and Relatives Department of the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John, to whose devoted and patient labours in this field I should like to pay tribute. Copies of this leaflet, which will shortly be ready, will be sent to the next of kin of officers and men reported missing in future. The contents of it will also be issued to the Press.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the arrangements whereby members of the public may obtain special information regarding missing and wounded soldiers by applying to Room 09, War Office, are now in operation; and can he make a statement about this matter?

Mr. Eden: The War Office casualty branch has been moved to the Bluecoat School, Wavertree, Liverpool. There is a Room 09 at the War Office in Whitehall where inquirers who call personally can furnish particulars of officers or soldiers with a view to their inquiries being sent to the office at Liverpool, where all the records of casualties are kept. No information about individuals other than that already communicated to the next of kin is available in Room 09.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Gunner

Raymond Cornelius, who, following a refusal to continue his Army training, has been recommended by the Conscientious Objectors' Appellate Tribunal in London for discharge from the Army; and whether he will consider the effect of such action on the discipline of the Army, and take the appropriate action?

Mr. Eden: This case was dealt with as prescribed in Section 13 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. The tribunal have decided that, on discharge from the Army, the man must do full-time ambulance work under civil control, or land work.

Sir A. Knox: Did this man apply for registration as a conscientious objector before he joined up? Surely it is rather late for him, when he is given an order that he does not wish to obey, to say that he has a conscientious objection?

Mr. Eden: This type of case is covered by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. My only task, as my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, is to administer that Act.

Sir A. Knox: Surely it is rather late for a man to say that he has conscientious objections when he gets an order that he does not wish to obey? All discipline would be at an end if that sort of thing continued.

Mr. Eden: This man was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, without hard labour, for refusing to go on parade. Therefore, the Act applies in the sense that I have mentioned. I have no discretion whatever but to administer the Act.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Has the man served his sentence?

Mr. Eden: Not yet. The earliest date for his release is 18th July.

Sir R. Young: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has completed his inquiries into the statement of a conscientious objector to the Bristol tribunal that he was paid nine weeks' wages for which he had done no work; and, if so, what action has been taken regarding the man, the foreman and the contracting firm concerned?

Mr. Eden: I have been unable to check the accuracy of the statement, as neither the man nor his foreman is now in the


employment of the contractor's firm in question. I am endeavouring to obtain particulars.

ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS (COMMISSIONS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the principle of promotion to officers' rank only after service in non-commissioned ranks, applies to the Royal Army Pay Corps; and why almost all commissions in this corps have been granted to persons with no previous experience of the work, and, with few exceptions, no promotions to officers' rank have been given to noncommissioned officers, and none to fully qualified Territorials?

Mr. Eden: The majority of emergency commissions in the Royal Army Pay Corps have been granted to members of the Army Officers Emergency Reserve who were earmarked before or early in the war as suitable by reason of their civil occupations for commissions in the Royal Army Pay Corps. A high proportion of these officers did service in the last war, but commissions from the ranks are now being granted to suitable men, including Territorials, who are recommended by their commanding officers. Instructions have recently been issued calling specially for such recommendations.

OFFICERS EMERGENCY RESERVE.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the services of all competent applicants to join the Army under the Army Officers Emergency Reserve are being accepted for the training of the new Army and of the Local Defence Volunteers?

Mr. Eden: Enrolment of suitable candidates in the Army Officers Emergency Reserve is still proceeding, and its members are being commissioned for duty as and when their services are required. A member of the Army Officers Emergency Reserve is free to join the Local Defence Volunteers until his services are required elsewhere.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Secretary for War aware that there are men in the Army Officers Emergency Reserve, aged between 40 and 50, who long ago volunteered to do any service they could be

given, and so far have not been called upon to do anything?

Mr. Eden: A very large number of these officers have recently been called upon. If my hon. Friend would like me to give the figures, I will gladly do so if he will put a Question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNED JEWS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take urgent steps to remedy the conditions and bad feeling prevailing in the places where the interned Jews, men and women, are now imprisoned, in view of the effect upon American opinion of this bad example?

Mr. Eden: Any deficiencies which exist at present are due to the difficulties caused by the recent intakes of internees, but every effort is being made to effect improvement at the earliest possible moment. In view of the importance of securing the best conditions possible in the circumstances for internees for whose custody the War Office has responsibility, I have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to make a full investigation of the matter so far as it affects my Department. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he is not aware of any complaints so far as women are concerned.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the lurid accounts in the American Press of the women internees' camps? Are those in his charge or under another Department?

Mr. Eden: The women are under the Home Office.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate that to the Home Office?

Mr. Graham White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give to the House and the country the assurance that the conditions in these camps in no way fall below the standard of the International Prisoners of War Convention, and, if not, will he be prepared to answer a Question on this day week?

Mr. Eden: I am very anxious that there should be no doubts that we are doing all we can and should in this


matter. I have asked my hon. Friend to make a special investigation, and I am confident that I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

Mr. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that mortal injury is being done to our good name?

Mr. Eden: I hope that no injury will be done to our good name by rumours. I am trying to ascertain the facts. I can give the House my personal assurance that everything possible will be done to put the situation right.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very important that this matter should be debated in the House?

Mr. Eden: That, of course, is not a matter for me, but it seems to me that the most vital matter is to see that it is put right.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Perhaps America would like to take some of these people?

Mr. Silverman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is anything wrong, it arises as much out of the indiscriminate internment of people who happen to be born in particular countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH LEGION.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet taken any action in connection with the French Legion and other troops; whether such members of the Legion as decide to continue to fight for us under British officers will be given the option of taking up British citizenship, as in the case of the French Navy; and what action he proposes to take in connection with Major Ruding Bryan?

Mr. Eden: General de Gaulle has been officially recognised, and French troops are being organised under his command. As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in reply to a Question on 4th July last, it has been declded in principle to afford special facilities for naturalisation to French citizens who continue to support the Allied cause, and this would, of course, apply to any who might serve under British officers. As regards the last part of the Question, I am informed that the officer mentioned has rendered good

service in a difficult position, and has earned the thanks of the French authorities concerned.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report that I made to the Under-Secretary about this officer, and about the affairs of the camp in question? Is he seeing that the promise to hold an inquiry is carried out?

Mr. Eden: I did not know about that. I have heard that this officer has been specially asked by the Foreign Legion where he was situated to stay there, because they get on so well with him.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this officer has been persuading the troops to go back to France, that he is a Fascist, that he is refusing to allow the circulation of the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the terms of the Armistice signed by the French Government, and that he has obviously destroyed our chance of getting over 10,000 men into the British Army? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. Eden: Of course, I will. But I think it hardly likely that this man would have been thanked by the French officers, and particularly by the Commander of the French Foreign Legion, if that had been the position.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, after trying to see him, I was asked to see the Under-Secretary, that I gave the whole facts to the Under-Secretary, that he promised that an inquiry would be held, and that nothing further has been done about it?

Mr. Eden: I apologise; I did not know that. But I am quite sure that if my hon. Friend promised an inquiry, an inquiry is taking place. As soon as I receive the results I will communicate with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES.

INTOXICANTS AND TREATING.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the representations of the Business Committee of the Church of Scotland Women's Guild Council of Kirkcaldy, representing 43 branches of the council, calling for legislation on the subject of


the supply of intoxicants to members of the Armed Forces; and whether he proposes to take any action on the lines of the council's recommendations?

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a resolution of the Church of Scotland Women's Guild Council, of Greenock Presbytery, representing 4,500 women, asking that a no treating order for the duration of the war be promulgated immediately; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have received no representations on this subject from the local councils referred to, but I am aware of the terms of the resolution recently passed by the Central Guild. On my present information I cannot find that there is a case for a prohibition of treating, but I am keeping the situation under careful review.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the women mentioned in Question No. 31 are impressed with the fact that treating is a favourite and potent weapon in the hands of Fifth Columnists, alias traitors, and will he consider the matter from that point of view?

Mr. Brown: I have all points of view in mind, including the point of view that the number of persons apprehended in the four large cities in Scotland for offences involving drunkenness during the period from September, 1939, to June, 1940, was 13,420, against 13,666 for the corresponding period 12 months before.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of drunkenness does not enter into this matter at all, and that it is a matter of loosening the tongue and giving away information on the principle of in vino veritas?

Mr. Brown: That may be so, but my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the facts I have given.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no treating is an old Scottish custom?

POSTAGE FACILITIES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the free postage to their homes now granted to Dominion troops in this coun-

try, he will secure the same privilege to British troops whose pay is substantially lower and who therefore are in greater need of that concession?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir, and my right hon. Friend has already explained in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 18th June some of the objections to the grant of free postage to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in this country. The position is in no way affected by any arrangements made by the Dominions authorities at their own expense in regard to letters home from Dominions forces serving away from their own country.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that numbers of our troops feel rather hurt that Dominion soldiers, who have bigger pay, have this facility, whereas our troops have not?

Captain Bellenger: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give further consideration to this matter, seeing that if this concession could be granted, it would be very well received by the soldiers, many of whom have already enjoyed the facility while serving overseas, whereas now that they are in the front line here, they do not have it?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the reasons which my right hon. Friend gave as preventing him from accepting this suggestion. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member's second point, the troops have enjoyed the facility when overseas for the reason that when they are serving overseas there are no normal postal facilities. Those postal facilities exist in this country.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the same argument apply to Dominion soldiers as applies to British soldiers?

Captain Crookshank: Whether it does or not, it has nothing to do with me, because the Dominions make their own arrangements.

Mr. Sorensen: Why not follow suit?

PARCELS (EGYPT).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the hardship felt by relatives of men serving in His


Majesty's Forces in Egypt, by reason of the very high duty imposed by the Egyptian Government on small parcels sent to these men; and will he consider again raising the matter with the Egyptian Government, with a view to a lowering of these duties?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Egyptian postal authorities admit free of duty all parcels for British troops in Egypt up to five kilogrammes in weight, except those containing tobacco, cigarettes and spirits. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Green: Is the Minister aware that relatives of hundreds of serving men in Egypt are still feeling a grievance because when they send parcels the duty at present in many cases exceeds the value of the parcel sent?

Mr. Butler: That aspect is receiving my Noble Friend's consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT (TRAINING, MINE WORKERS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the unemployment in the coalfields, he is establishing training schemes for mine workers to enable them to aid the national endeavour in other spheres of industry?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am afraid that I have no powers to initiate such schemes. If it should prove necessary to transfer workers out of the mining industry, training for other work would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Adams: Is not my hon. Friend aw are that there is great discontent in the minefields on the part of those who are in enforced unemployment?

Mr. Grenfell: I am aware that there is rather a serious and I hope only temporary measure of unemployment in the coalfields just now, but it does not throw responsibility on me for the transfer of labour.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say why there should be unemployment in the minefields when we in Cheltenham can get no household coal?

Mr. Grenfell: There are other factors in the distribution of coal which I can explain to the hon. Gentleman and probably to the House when the opportunity comes.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

AIR-RAID WARNINGS (MINERS' WAGES).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Bedlington Coal Company, Northumberland, in deducting from datal men Is. 4d., in other cases Is. 4d., from minimum wages Is. 4d., and in the case of coal producers Id. from the 6d. special advance, on account of being delayed in commencing work owing to an air-raid alarm, as such actions are likely to lead to industrial unrest; and will he take steps to prevent a recurrence of the injustice?

Mr. Grenfell: I have made inquiries and have been informed by the colliery company that they made deductions from the daily rate of pay to datallers for the alleged reason that the men were not present for work at the commencement of the shift and for the period which corresponds to the deductions made from the wages of the men in question.

Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local association has made every endeavour to get a settlement of this question arising out of the peculiar difficulties of the case?

Mr. Grenfell: I think it is a most appropriate question for the district association to settle, and I would suggest that this matter should be referred back once again to both sides. It must be settled by agreement at some time or other, and now that the matter has been raised I think the district committees should take it up.

Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister exert and use his influence to have this matter amicably settled between the two associations?

Mr. Grenfell: I think the two associations have full and sufficient power to settle this dispute.

Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the district association have repeatedly and exhaustively endeavoured to settle the question?

Mr. Grenfell: I should be disappointed if a question like this could not be settled amicably during a time of war.

NORWEGIAN FREIGHTS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Northumberland coal carried in Norwegian freights involves an extra charge of 2s. 10d. per ton; whether he appreciates the substantially heavier expenditure that this imposes on institutions and other concerns laying in stocks; and whether, in view of this extra charge as compared with British freights, he will take steps to avoid the increase?

Mr. Grenfell: The quantity of coal carried coastwise in Norwegian ships is small. These ships are on time-charter to His Majesty's Government at rates which call for a freight charge which is 2s. 6d. per ton higher than that charged for carriage by British ships. The surcharge could be avoided only by charging the increased cost to the Exchequer, a course for which I can see no justification.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister suggest that in fact these extra charges have been pooled for these other freights?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not think that they make a substantial difference, and certainly now the quantity of coal carried by Norwegian ships is too small to affect the general cost.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate the fact that certain institutions are having to pay more for their coal?

Mr. Grenfell: I think it is the case that certain institutions whose coal was carried in Norwegian ships were paying 2s. 6d. per ton more for the carriage of coal, but it is inevitable that these conditions should apply at this time.

OUTPUT.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made towards the appeal he made for an increased output; and whether it has reached the point he anticipated at the present date?

Mr. Grenfell: With the willing co-operation of all sections of the industry, the campaign for the increased production of coal was proceeding very satisfactorily

when the whole position was recently transformed by the complete cessation of the heavy exports to France. Over the country as a whole there is now a surplus of productive capacity, and while the demands on the Midland areas will continue at a very high level, the exporting areas have to face a contraction of output. Every effort is being made to meet this position and to safeguard future supplies by a policy of extensive stocking, limited only by the transport facilities available.

Mr. Tinker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the feeling among the miners, after the splendid effort that they have made, because they have to be called upon to work short time; and will he go forward with the policy he has in mind to see that no colliery is closed, because every ton of coal is worth its value to the Services?

Mr. Grenfell: For the reason given by my hon. Friend, and for other reasons which are appreciated in all parts of the House, we are endeavouring not to permit a single pit to close. All pits are wanted to produce coal, and we shall endeavour to keep the pits at work and arrange for the distribution of the orders in the coalfield most affected, and I believe that heavy stoppages of work will be avoided by this means.

Mr. James Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend say whether any special effort has been made to endeavour to secure export markets in other parts of the world to replace those lost in recent weeks?

Mr. Grenfell: Without giving figures, I can assure the House that every effort has been made, and we hope that a substantial amount of new trade will be made to compensate in part for the loss of the export to France.

Captain Strickland: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that surplus coal from the Coventry district is being sent away from that city, while the surplus from South Wales is being imported into the city, and that there is a limit on the registered purchase of coal of 2 cwts., and cannot anything be done to rectify the matter?

Mr. Grenfell: A great deal has been done to rectify many anomalies existing at the present time. It is not as simple as it seems. All the burden of transporting


coal has been thrown on to the railway system, and I would say this for the rail system and those who organise railroad transport, that great things are being done at the present time to ensure that coal is sent where it is needed in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOLLEN AND HOSIERY INDUSTRIES.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether there is any co-ordination between his Department and the Service Departments ordering woollen garments; and whether any arrangements have been made to spread orders over hosiery firms on any principle proportionate to their capacity, with a view to avoiding overloading successful tendering firms at the expense of the collapse of the industry elsewhere;
(2) whether he is aware of the difficulties being faced by the hosiery industry in Clackmannanshire as a result of the restrictions in the sale of hosiery garments; and whether, in order to avoid unemployment and hardship, he is prepared to make arrangements with the Service Departments that the placing of orders for Service supplies will be done in conjunction with his Department, with a view to obtaining some fairness in the incidence of the legislation preventing normal sales?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): The Board of Trade maintain close touch with the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour. All firms affected by restriction of home sales are being invited to furnish particulars of plant or labour available, in order that, wherever possible, use shall be made of them for war purposes. In the case of both English and Scottish hosiery firms, the planning of the Government requirements for all departments of supply is carried out by the Ministry of Supply, with the assistance of an Advisory Trade Panel, and in placing contracts for hosiery and knitwear, due consideration is given to all existing capacity available. So far as Scotland is concerned, alternative patterns to the present specification are now under consideration in the hope that these may be found suitable for economic manufacture there.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are ample supplies of wool for the orders which are in the hands of Scottish hosiery firms?

Sir A. Duncan: I believe the wool is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMA CONSTRUCTION (STEEL).

Mr. Cocks: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the large amount of valuable steel being used in the construction of a large cinema in Westbourne Grove; and whether he will put a stop to the use of steel in non-essential buildings?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, I am informed that the circumstances in which the erection of this cinema was continued are being investigated. Work on it has now ceased. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has made an Order which came into force yesterday and enables all non-essential building involving the use of steel to be stopped.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister advise his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to remove the metal guarding the useless statue at the top of Whitehall?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEK SHIPS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping how many Greek-owned vessels have been purchased by the Ministry since the beginning of the war; how many of those vessels were previously sold to Greek owners by British firms; and whether he can state the difference between the price of sale to the Greeks and the price of resale to the Ministry?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): No vessels under the Greek flag have been purchased since the beginning of the war by my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF "ARANDORA STAR."

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he has any statement to make about the loss of the "Arandora Star"; whether the ship was convoyed and had ample lifeboat provision; how many of the Germans on board were known to be Nazis and how many came to this country as refugees; when will he


be able to provide the friends and relatives in England with the names of the persons drowned; and whether it is proposed to send internees abroad without convoy?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he will make a statement respecting the loss of the "Arandora Star"; whether the enemy aliens on board or lost included those who had received B or C certificates or were recognised as friendly aliens or enemies from Nazi oppression; whether those in these categories were compelled to sail; whether the available next of kin both of the British crew and the internees who were lost have now been informed; whether, in the event of large numbers of hostile Nazi or Fascist prisoners or internees being transported, he will see that any minority British crew is afforded the protection they deem necessary; and whether he will keep distinct and separate enemy aliens of pro- and anti-Nazi and Fascist sympathies?

Mr. Cross: In accordance with the usual practice in respect of fast ships, the "Arandora Star" was not convoyed. Lifeboats and life-rafts more than sufficient to accommodate all passengers and crew were provided. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that all the Germans on board were Nazi sympathisers and that none came to this country as refugees. None had Category B or C certificates or were recognised as friendly aliens. The Protecting Powers have been given lists of the missing passengers, in order that the next of kin may be informed. The owners have already taken steps to inform the next of kin of the crew who were lost. I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that adequate military guard was provided in the case of the "Arandora Star" and will be provided in future in other ships similarly used. Every endeavour will be made to separate enemy aliens of Nazi and Fascist sympathies from those of anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist sympathies. The Admiralty apply to these vessels the same rules as regards escort as to other British ships carrying passengers, that is, the faster ones proceed independently and the slower ones in convoy.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask whether, if any other friendly aliens, or those with

B and C certificates are sent away, their relatives will be informed?

Mr. Cross: That question does not apply to my Department.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is the Minister aware of the feeling in the country that the lives of British sailors should not be sacrificed to save the skins of enemy aliens?

Mr. Logan: As we have had a loss of lives in Liverpool, I would like to ask, having seen this boat go out of the Mersey with troops on board, why lifebelts were given by officers to some refugees while the officers themselves were without life-belts?

Mr. Cross: I have had no report of that. There were ample lifebelts on board for all.

Oral Answers to Questions — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the call being made to the workers to forego their summer holidays, he proposes to keep the House of Commons in regular session throughout the summer months?

Mr. Attlee: The work done by Parliament is not necessarily measured by the length or frequency of its sittings. I contemplate that it will be necessary for the House to assemble at regular intervals during the summer months, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at the moment. What is important is that Parliament should be intimately associated with the action of the executive which it sustains and controls.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that much comment was made on the fact that part of the disaster in France arose because their Parliament could not meet and because of the absence of Deputies, and will he see that there is every opportunity for this Parliament to continue?

Mrs. Tate: Will the right hon. Gentleman please make arrangements whereby Members who have run away from this country on missions invented by themselves should forgo for ever the right of sitting in this House?

Hon. Members: Name?

Mrs. Tate: Marylebone.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

DERATED AGRICULTURAL LAND (SALE).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the profit made on the sale of derated agricultural land at a high price for war purposes is regarded as a revenue profit or a capital gain?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): As I have already informed my hon. Friend, the broad distinction in such cases is between the carrying on of a trade or business and the realisation of capital assets. Each case would have to be determined according to the circumstances.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Chancellor explain why people who sell land of poor value at high prices get away with the huge profits that nobody else is allowed to make?

Sir K. Wood: This is a matter to be settled on the merits of each case, and so far as the general application is concerned, there is a number of legal cases.

WAR FINANCING.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will open a national bank for the purpose of financing contracts, thereby avoiding the payment of interest charges to private moneylenders?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I do not accept my hon. Friend's contention. I would refer to the reply I gave to him on 25th June.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor not realise what a contribution this policy would make towards the avoidance of hanging another huge war debt around the neck of the nation when the war is over?

Mr. Shinwell: Why should Government contracts be financed at a fairly high rate of interest by private banks? Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down, I will endeavour to answer him.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (BANKS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the advances to agriculturalists by the clearing banks, which amounted in the aggregate to about

£53,000,000 in the middle of February, 1940, he has any information as to the average rate of interest that is being charged by the banks for this accommodation?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot say what is the average rate, but I understand that in most cases the banks' charge is from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that it becomes clearer and clearer that there is not the least possible excuse for charging 5 per cent. to borrowers, especially agricultural borrowers who are being exhorted to obtain the maximum from their land? Why should they give everything and the banks nothing?

Mr. Stokes: Is not this a complete example of what I have been saying?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this the same question as I have already put to the Chancellor? Cannot he understand the point?

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend try to get away from this frustration and obstruction and make some genuine endeavour, because if he does not, he will forfeit all right to public confidence?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the decision which has been communicated to the British Bankers Association by the Governor of the Bank of England, providing for a maximum of 1 per cent. on deposit rates, he will confer with the Governor of the Bank of England with a view to securing that the British Bankers Association should agree to restrict the charges made for loans to agriculturalists and other businesses engaged on work of national importance to 1 per cent. above the existing Bank Rate?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Such charges must obviously depend upon the conditions of individual cases, and it would not be possible to lay down maximum interest rates in every instance.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this exactly the same point as I have previously made? Will my right hon. Friend really take this matter seriously? Is he not fully aware that he will lose all public confidence if he sits down and laughs at these serious matters?

Sir K. Wood: I should like my hon. Friend to realise that I do take the matter


seriously, but obviously the rates of interest must depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this matter long overdue for overhaul? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to appointing additional members to his Consultative Council, with a view to giving a more equal balance between orthodox and progressive financial opinion?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The members of the Council I have appointed represent a wide variety of knowledge and experience, and I do not think it desirable to increase the size of the Council.

STAMP AND ESTATE DUTIES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the catastrophic decline in industrial shares during the month of June last; and, in view of the loss to the Treasury through Stamp and Estate Duties, what action does he propose to take?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 4th July to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, South West (Sir G. Mitcheson). The upward movement to which I referred has continued.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it correct that the big insurance companies and other large investors were instructed to keep out of the equity market prior to the National War Loans issue?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUEES (BED CONTRACTS).

Mr. Silkin: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action it is proposed to take on Section VIII of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with allega-

tions of improper commissions in connection with contracts for beds for evacuees?

Captain Crookshank: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I have appointed a Committee of Inquiry into these matters consisting of Sir Thomas Barnes, Treasury Solicitor (Chairman), Sir James Rae and Mr. H. M. Hooke.

Mr. Silkin: When does the right hon. and Gallant Gentleman expect to get a report from the committee which he has set up?

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I cannot say, but as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES (BREAD).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the compulsory reintroduction of wholemeal bread and the total abolition of white bread for the duration of the war?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): No, Sir; wholemeal bread is available for those who prefer it, and my Noble Friend sees no reason for placing those who would rather eat white bread in a less advantageous position.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that if this scheme were introduced it would lead to an immediate reopening of thousands of mills all over the country, thus enabling people to be supplied locally?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

"HOME DEFENCE MOVEMENT."

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the activities being carried on by the British Union of Fascists under cover of an organisation known as "Home Defence Movement," including the sending of literature to soldiers; and whether he will take steps to watch carefully this development?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend made an order last May for the detention of the man by whom this literature was produced, and no further specimens of it have since come under


notice. If the hon. Member has any information to show that it is still being produced, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.

Mr. Mander: Is my hon. Friend aware that the facts with regard to this person came out in the evidence in a case at Worthing the other day? Has he had that brought to his attention?

Mr. Peake: I dare say they did, but this man was interned more than seven weeks ago. If the hon. Member has any more recent information on the subject, perhaps he will be kind enough to let me have it.

Viscountess Actor: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that if this man has a wife, she will go, too? The women are far more dangerous than the men.

SCHOOL AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary what steps he is taking with reference to the refusal by the Staffordshire Education Committee to allow the use by the public of school air-raid shelters after school hours; and what is the practice in the country generally?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Instructions on this subject have recently been issued to all Regional Headquarters, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy of them.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is the Government's policy that these shelters should be available to the general public after school hours?

Mr. Mabane: I think that if the hon. Member will read the instructions, he will find the reasons, which are very lengthy.

Mr. Mander: As this is a matter of principle and the hon. Gentleman has given a very short answer, perhaps he will give some further explanation?

Mr. Mabane: When the shelters are not at a given time being used by school children, then in certain circumstances it is desirable that the public should use them; but it is not desirable, when there is danger of the public getting in the way of the school children.

CONTROLLED AREA.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Home Secretary whether the coastal area

now under control is to be extended to the westward to include the county of Sussex; and whether he realises that the failure to decide whether or not to extend is producing a disturbed state of mind in the population of the area concerned?

Mr. Mabane: The Sussex coastal area was declared a Defence Area on 1st July.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my hon. Friend say who it is who controls movement into and out of this area, and why the borough of Brighton is excluded from it?

Mr. Mabane: That is a different question. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put it on the Paper.

CHILDREN (CURFEW).

Mr. Logan: asked the Home Secretary whether, under the Defence Regulations, he will issue a curfew order in regard to children?

Mr. Mabane: My right hon. Friend does not think there are any sufficient grounds for making a general order of the character suggested. There is a number of local curfews in Defence Areas, but these are not confined to children.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Liverpool a desire has been expressed that this order should come into operation? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Mabane: I was not aware of that.

Viscountess Astor: Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the tremendously good effect which a curfew would have on children, and will he bear in mind that the problem of children is much more important now than it was before the war began?

Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman give authority if the City of Liverpool makes an application?

Mr. Mabane: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider prohibiting evacuation of any area except under Government control, in view of the fact that any voluntary evacuation must inevitably favour the well-to-do and


penalise the poorer sections of the community?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The Government have made it plain that it is the duty of members of the civilian population to stay where they are and carry on with their work unless they receive orders or advice to the contrary, and I have no evidence hitherto that movements from one area to another are having any marked effect on the operation of the Government's scheme for the evacuation of school children. The local authorities in reception areas have wide powers of obtaining the accommodation they require.

Mr. Lawson: In the case of adults residing in an area which has previously been safe and has now become dangerous, has there been any marked evacuation, and have the Government any policy for dealing with a situation of this kind?

Miss Horsbrugh: In certain areas the population has been advised to move from one part to another. In these areas there is a certain amount of control, but in the reception areas the billets are available for the children and property can be requisitioned if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — DETENTION OF A MEMBER.

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give details of the actual hours of association and exercise allowed to the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) presently detained in Brixton prison?

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me an opportunity to correct the answer which I gave to his Supplementary Question on 2nd July. The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles is at present located in hospital and is allowed out for exercise or association from 8.55 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. and from 1.40 p.m. to 3.45 P.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the hon. Gentleman says "allowed out," does he mean at large?

Mr. Peake: He is allowed out within the precincts of the gaol for exercise and association with other internees.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that the people who will be called upon to work on August Bank Holiday will be paid special rates of wages if the trade union agreements stipulate extra pay for holidays?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): As stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) on 13th June, it is the view of the Government that questions arising as to the rate of wages for work done on days that would ordinarily be holidays should be settled in accordance with any provisions in agreements relating to this matter. The Order in Council cancelling Monday, 5th August, as a Bank Holiday for statutory purposes, provides expressly that the day shall be deemed to be a Bank Holiday for the purposes of any agreement, whether oral or in writing, relating to the payment of wages for work done on a Bank Holiday.

Mr. Thorne: Am I to understand from that answer that there is to be no interference with agreements regulating Bank Holiday questions?

Mr. Assheton: That is so.

Mr. Banfield: Does the answer apply also to Trade Board regulations regarding Bank Holidays?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that some munitions workers are To-day earning as much as £120 or £30 a week; is he further aware that when Sundays were generally being worked for the first time extra pay was not expected; and does he intend to continue to pay these excessively high wages?

Mr. Assheton: While I do not accept the premises of my hon. Friend's question, perhaps he will put it on the Paper.

Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to give sailors, soldiers and airmen extra pay for August Bank Holiday?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (REGISTRATION AND INTAKE).

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Minister of Labour how it arises that large


numbers of young men, medically examined, some as long ago as last December, and found to be Grade I, are still waiting to be called up?

Mr. Assheton: Under current arrangements single men are normally called up for the Army within two months or less of the date of medical examination. The interval may be longer in the case of married men and of men accepted for service in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines or the Royal Air Force, and considerably longer in the case of men who are earmarked to be called up only to fill vacancies for tradesmen. The longer delay in the latter services is due to the fact that whereas it is essential to have available for these Services an adequate supply of men of the requisite qualifications and ages, the rate of intake, which determines the interval between medical examination and posting, must depend upon the actual requirements of the Services from time to time. If the hon. Baronet is aware of cases in which, in the light of this explanation, delay in calling up still seems unnecessarily long and would care to forward particulars to me I shall be glad to make inquiries into them.

Mr. Loftus: Is the Minister aware that there are many hundreds of young men in my district who do not come under the categories named, but who are anxious to he called up? Is he further aware that these men registered many months ago and that they are now waiting to be called up? Is there no check to check these men over?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is another question altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

STEEL.

Mr. Cary: asked the Minister of Supply whether he can give any information about the quantity of steel used up in connection with the construction of the University of London extension building at Bloomsbury; and, as steel requirements for the purposes of national defence have to be covered in part through import from the United States of America and constitute a strain upon our shipping and foreign exchange facilities, will he take steps to stop the construction of the above-named building?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The quantity of steel used in the London University extension was approximately 1,300 tons. The contract was entered into before the war, and such contracts were exempt from the requirement of licence until 1st January last. At that stage the bulk of the steel had been made and despatched to London and the small balance was ready for delivery from the works. In the circumstances, a licence was granted in January for the outstanding balance. My right hon. Friend has made an Order which came into operation yesterday prohibiting the use of steel already in the hands of contractors for building purposes except under licence, and the position of the University extension will be reviewed under this Order.

MACHINE TOOLS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply what percentage of machine tools in the country is now in full use?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: A census of the hours of working of machine tools in the engineering and allied trades has recently been taken. The statistical results obtained from it in many cases require further investigation before it is possible to say definitely whether a particular machine is already fully used or capable of fuller employment. This investigation is being carried out by the Area Organisation, in order that appropriate action may be taken in each case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (LONDON ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Information whether, as the London Regional Advisory Committee does not include any representatives of employers or retail traders, though it includes representatives of the London Trades Council, the Trades Union Congress and the co-operative movement, he will take steps to alter this forthwith?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): It was not possible to complete the membership of the Advisory Committee for the London Region before the pressure of events rendered it necessary that it should meet and commence its duties on a nucleus basis. I can assure


the hon. Member that in the completion of the committee the necessity of covering the interests of employers and retail traders will be carefully borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (LEAFLET).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered a leaflet, a copy of which has been sent to him, purporting to ask eight questions on behalf of farmers, housewives, service men and others, and mis quoting points from a broadcast of his, on 2nd June, 1940; and whether he will take steps to make it clear that it is without official authority or permission that his name is being used in this propaganda?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): My right hon. Friend has considered this leaflet, in which the opinions of the National Temperance Federation are made to appear as points from his broadcast. He hopes that this reply will make it clear that unauthorised use of his name is being made in this propaganda and that the House will agree that propaganda methods of this sort are most discreditable to the organisation concerned.

FRENCH WARSHIPS (BRITISH ACTION).

Mr. Ammon: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the naval situation?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir. The House will remember that on 4th July the Prime Minister described the painful but very necessary action which we had taken on the previous day to prevent units of the French Fleet, lying in British and North African ports, passing into enemy control. Since that date the Royal Navy have carried out two other operations designed to increase the security of this country against the use of French warships by the enemy. On 6th July a French battle-cruiser of the "Dunkerque" class, which had been damaged and driven ashore at Oran, was attacked by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, which

obtained six hits. As a result this powerful ship will be incapable of effective use for a very long time to come. Apart from the ships thus dealt with, there lay at Dakar, in French West Africa, the 35,000-ton battleship "Richelieu," which had just been completed, and which was the most modern and formidable capital ship in the world, immediately available for active operations.
In accordance with the decision announced to the House by the Prime Minister, His Majesty's Government decided that steps must also be taken to ensure that this vessel did not fall into enemy hands in a condition in which she could be used against us. A force was accordingly despatched to Dakar with orders to present to the French Admiral there proposals similar to those offered to the French Commander at Oran. On 7th July the Flag Officer entrusted with this operation sent one of his captains ahead in a sloop in order to present the terms in person. On arrival this ship was informed by the French authorities that they would open fire if she approached close to the port, and it was only after an interval that the French consented to receive this communication by signal. In view of the statements which have been made by the French Government concerning the terms offered at Oran, I think it is desirable that I should recapitulate now those put to the Admiral at Dakar.
His Majesty's Government offered four alternatives. Firstly, that the French ships should sail with reduced crews and under escort to a British port with a guarantee that the crews would at once be repatriated, and at the end of the war the ships returned to France; secondly, that they should sail with reduced crews to a French port in the West Indies where they could be demilitarised, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States for safe keeping; thirdly, that the ships should be demilitarised in Dakar within 12 hours; or, fourthly, that they should be sunk within a time limit some hours after the receipt of the signal by the French authorities. No satisfactory reply was received within this limit. Nevertheless, the British Naval Flag Officer in charge waited longer before carrying out his orders to use force. Finally, as it became clear that the French authorities did not propose to accede to any of the British suggestions,


he had no alternative but to carry out his painful duty in the early hours of 8th July.
The attack upon the "Richelieu" was twofold. A ship's boat, under the command of Lieutenant-Commander R. H. Bristowe, R.N., was sent into the harbour carrying depth charges. With great daring the boat successfully passed the boom defences and went alongside the port quarter of the "Richelieu." At the right moment depth charges were dropped close under the stern of the warship as she lay at anchor in the shallow water in order to damage her propellers and steering-gear. The motor-boat began to withdraw immediately after dropping the depth charges, but while still in the harbour broke down and lay helpless for a time. The crew, however, succeeded in getting one engine running just as they were discovered, and the boat, which was pursued, just managed to escape by crossing the harbour defence nets, which held its pursuer. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the gallantry and skill with which this operation was carried out, for it must be obvious that whoever undertook an operation like that ran the risk the whole time of blowing himself up.
The main attack was entrusted to aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and took place after the attack by the motor-boat. These aircraft were successful with their torpedoes, a number of which hit the "Richelieu." The motor-boat, which was still in the harbour, witnessed the aircraft attack, heard five explosions and then saw smoke issuing from the battleship. Air reconnaissance since carried out has established that the "Richelieu" has a list to port and is down by the stem. A large quantity of oil fuel covers the water around the ship. All our aircraft returned safely, in spite of heavy antiaircraft fire. I would desire, and I am sure the House would desire, to pay tribute to the skill, efficiency and courage with which this action has been carried out by the officers and men concerned.
The House will appreciate the result of the painful action which we have had to take. When the armistice was signed, France had eight capital ships fit to form a line of battle under present conditions. Of these, three of the "Bretagne" and the "Courbet" classes have now passed under our control, one has been sunk, and

one has been badly damaged and immobilised. That makes five of these two classes. Of two modern battle-cruisers, one has been driven ashore at Oran and, as I have already mentioned, will be out of action for a long time to come, if not permanently. The other, as the Prime Minister told the House, managed to escape and is presumed to have reached Toulon, but only after having been hit by a torpedo, which will immobilise her for some time. The state of the "Richelieu," the seventh ship, has been described already this afternoon. There remains, in addition, only the sister ship of the "Richelieu," the "Jean Bart," which will not, however, be completed for operational service for some months to come.
I need not emphasise that the transfer of this powerful modern capital fleet to the enemy might have altered the whole balance of naval strength, with incalculable results to our cause. As a result of the measures we have taken, this grave anxiety is now removed. Perhaps the House will permit me to add a word of thanks to our Naval Staff, who had to plan these recent operations immediately with and following the completion of the evacuation in face of the enemy of troops and refugees totalling not fewer than 600,000, the greatest achievement of its kind in the history of naval operations and a remarkable tribute to the value of our sea power, a power which we do not intend to lose. Rather we intend to prevent the seaborne invasion of this island or the escape of any marauders who dare to set foot here.

Mr. Ammon: I am sure the House will congratulate all those concerned on these very gallant operations. May I ask whether there are any units, other than the capital ships referred to, that can possibly be used against us, such as cruisers and other vessels?

Mr. Alexander: I have no doubt that there are still some cruisers in the control of the French authorities, and they will have to be watched, but I hope the House will not press me at this moment for further particulars.

Sir A. Southby: Can my right hon. Friend give the House the name of the flag officer in command of these operations, and say at what port the "Jean Bart" is now lying?

Mr. Alexander: I think I would prefer not to answer either of those questions, for strategical reasons. I do not wish to reveal, by the name of the officer, which was the unit of the Fleet Air Arm which took part, and I do not want to say at the moment where the other ship is.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: When the four alternative proposals were rejected, did the Admiral of the French battleship make any alternative suggestion?

Mr. Alexander: The French Admiral made no other suggestion at all.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the traditions of the French people and sailors, was it not possible to make an appeal to the French sailors to take over the ship and immobilise it?

Mr. Alexander: It was made clear by the Prime Minister that His Majesty's Government made an appeal to the people in charge of the Fleet to sail with us and fight with us.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there were any other ships similar to the one at Dakar, and what happened to them?

Mr. Alexander: Not at this moment.

Miss Rathbone: What steps have been taken to make known to the French people the terms, because they have been so ingeniously suppressed by the Petain Government?

Mr. Alexander: I believe steps have been taken by the Ministry of Information. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put that question down.

Mr. Hannah: Can we not express sympathy with the relatives of the French sailors?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not very difficult to get the truth to the French sailors in this country? Some of us tried very hard to let them know what was going on, but it was absolutely forbidden.

Mr. Alexander: I think that question should be put on the Paper. Of course, there is no Member of the Government, and certainly no officer or man of the British Fleet, who does not regret to the utmost that this action has been necessary. I may add that the commanding officer in charge of the operations sent a personal signal to the French Admiral

after they were over expressing his regret at having to carry out these painful duties and hoping there were no casualties.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (AIR-RAID WARNINGS).

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of which I have given you private notice, namely, whether you can give the House any guidance on the procedure which should be followed in the event of air raids?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I have taken the opportunity of consulting the Palace of Westminster A.R.P. Committee, who are responsible for the scheme which covers the whole of the building. The committee considered whether the suspension of a Sitting should continue to follow automatically on the receipt of an "Air Raid Imminent" warning, or should be left to the discretion of the Chair, and recommended unanimously that no change should be made in the existing procedure. With this recommendation I fully agree. The duty of deciding whether or not to ignore an air-raid warning is not one that can fairly be placed upon the occupant of the Chair—who may be myself, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Deputy-Chairman, or one of the panel of Temporary Chairmen—since he has no means of assessing the degree of risk to which he may be subjecting those present in the Chamber, many of whom are not Members, on any particular occasion.
I think some hon. Members may have forgotten the details of the agreed procedure in connection with air raids; and that it is not generally realised that the arrangements for this House, like those for another place, form part of and must conform to the general scheme for the whole building. I am, accordingly, arranging to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant words of Part V of the general scheme, which deals especially with this House, together with a summary of the grounds upon which the A.R.P. Committee based their recommendation.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, having now received the guidance of Mr. Speaker, he proposes to introduce a new Resolution on the subject?

Mr. Thorne: For the guidance of hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to say what is to be done for the people in the Gallery?

Mr. Speaker: That is all included in the scheme.

Mr. Attlee: I think, in view of what has been said by Mr. Speaker, that the House will now realise the need for some regularisation of the procedure, and I propose to introduce a Resolution.

Following is an extract from Part V of the Air-Raid Precautions Scheme (Palace of Westminster):
On receipt of the warning 'Air Raid Imminent' the occupant of the Speaker's Chair or the occupant of the Chairman of Ways and Means Chair will thereupon suspend the sitting of the House or of the Committee as the case may be, and the Bar Messengers will call out to the Doorkeeper, 'Air Raid, Sitting Suspended.' The Doorkeeper will then call out 'Air Raid' in the same way as he would call out 'Division,' but he will not ring the Division Bell. 'Air Raid' will be repeated by the Police throughout the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. This warning will be reinforced by sharp blasts on a whistle; these should not be continued unnecessarily. … If an air raid should occur without previous warning, the occupant of the Speaker's or Chairman of Ways and Means Chair will immediately suspend the Sitting. Members of Parliament and other persons will then be instructed by Doorkeepers, Messengers and Police to proceed immediately and quietly to the Refuges as laid down. 'Air Raid Over' will be communicated by the Telephone Exchange to Refuge Headquarters. Five minutes after 'Air Raid Over' the Doorkeeper will ring the bell and on the Speaker resuming the Chair will call 'Speaker in the Chair,' which will be repeated as usual.

Following is a summary of reasons submitted by A.R.P. Committee to Mr. SPEAKER with reference to the suspension of the Sitting during an Air-Raid Warning:
Under the present arrangements the action to be taken on receipt of an air-raid warning or if an air raid occurs without warning is as indicated above. After careful consideration the Committee unanimously resolved to recommend to the Speaker that this system, which had been decided upon after mature deliberation, should be adhered to, for the following reasons:

(1) To leave to the discretion of the Speaker, or Chairman, or to one of the Temporary Chairmen the decision whether or not to adjourn when a Red Warning had been given and the sirens were sounding outside was to impose upon him an almost impossible task.
(2) On what principle was the Speaker, or the Chairman, to decide exactly at

what moment he would adjourn the House, if he was not guided by the Red Warning?
(3) Practically it would be more than inconvenient—indeed impossible—to have one system for the Chamber and another for the rest of the building. The telephone operators are situated at the top of the building and on a Red Warning immediately vacate these premises and go to the refuge telephone room. In the meanwhile telephonic communication is interrupted. It would appear impossible to order persons not in the Chamber, including Members, kitchen staff, workmen and the public, to remain where they were and not go to the refuges until the Speaker had suspended the Sitting. How are they to be told when he had done so? Many officials have duties to perform in refuges as wardens or sub-wardens and must take up their positions upon the Red Warning being given. If the present arrangements are departed from, there is a grave danger that whilst the House continued to sit some of the Members and some of the staff might be going to the refuge, and general confusion might ensue. In the opinion of the Committee it is vital that there should be a uniform system throughout the building, including both Chambers.
(4) There is no analogy between factories engaged upon urgent war work and the sitting of the Houses of Parliament as some of the speakers on the Lord Privy Seal's Motion appeared to think. These factories, for the most part, work on a 24-hour shift. Any interruption, therefore, in the 24 hours caused by air raids is time lost for ever in the manufacture of essential war production. But the House of Commons does not habitually sit for 24 hours, and any time lost by the suspension of the sitting during an air raid can be made up as was proposed in the Motion.
(5) The principle urged upon all persons during an air raid is to scatter and take cover and is strongly advocated by the Ministry of Home Security, who have expressed the hope that no change will be made in the present proposals as to the action to be taken on an air raid warning.
(6) If the House was to continue to sit after a Red Warning had been given, all in the Chamber would be running a considerable risk because the Chamber is one of the most vulnerable parts of the building. Such a course would also nullify the arrangements now made to eliminate casualties among Ministers and others by dispersal. At present they are distributed among the different refuges. This arrangement has been made on the express request of the Minister of Home Security and ought not lightly to be abandoned."

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

William Nunn, esquire, for the Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (West Division).

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1940.

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

4.5 P.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): It was on 13th March last that the House passed a Vote of Credit for £700,000,000 as a first instalment of the provision for war expenditure in the present year. That sum is now approaching exhaustion, and it is therefore necessary to ask for a further substantial grant. As regards the Vote of £700,000,000 granted last March, the position is this: Up to Saturday last, 6th July, we had spent some £575,000,000 of that sum, and if expenditure goes on, as it must, at the present or at an increased rate, that Vote will be exhausted in a further two or three weeks. Our present rate of war expenditure is in the neighbourhood of rather more than £50,000,000 a week. Actually, over the last four weeks our average rate of expenditure, directly on the war, has been £54,000,000, which is equivalent to a daily rate of over £7,560,000.
That rate of £7,500,000 is accounted for in respect of about £6,500,000 each day, by the Navy, Army and Air Force and the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The remaining £1,000,000 per day is the rate of our expenditure on our other war services, including such outlays as those of the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry

of Food, and the Ministry of Home Security and the cost of such services as evacuation and emergency hospitals. While the other war services which I have mentioned are costing much the same per day as they did in the spring of this year, the cost of the Fighting Services has mounted from £4,000,000 a day, in March last, to £6,500,000 a day, which accounts for the whole of the increase in this total of expenditure.
I think I can rightly describe these figures as striking. They certainly provide real and visible evidence of the great and rapid increase that is being made in our main war effort. They not only represent no mean achievement, but if anyone still doubts, they are a further proof of our fixed determination to spare no effort in money or in any other way to carry on the war until victory is achieved. As far as the future is concerned, it is, of course, impossible to forecast with precision the rate of our expenditure in the next few months or to say how long a particular sum voted now will last. This certainly can be said, however, that we shall not rest until every effort has been made and every step has been taken to secure that those objects for which we have entered the war are attained.
I have decided to ask the Committee to approve a further sum of £1,000,000,000. I think this is the largest sum which I could reasonably ask Parliament to grant at one time, and I do so in the belief that it is right that Parliament, in the autumn, should have before it the facts and figures of the position at that time, before further grants are sanctioned. It is true that the Vote which I am asking the House to sanction is the largest Vote which has been taken at one time during this war or during the last war. It is a vast sum, judged even by modern standards, but I believe neither the Committee nor the country will wish to do otherwise than to provide the necessary sums, so that it may be possible for us to continue to forge, with energy and speed, the weapons necessary for the armament and equipment of our growing forces.
There is one other aspect to which I desire to refer. I feel bound to say this, particularly in my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Vote of Credit is only available for our war services.
There are, as we know, other considerable services of the State, and the cost of these must he added in order to obtain the full total of our national expenditure. There is the service of the Debt, and there are the Civil Votes, including the social services. When we add all that expenditure to our outlay on the war, we are faced with the position that we are at present spending at approximately the rate of no less than £9,500,000 a day. Now these are serious figures, and their implications are not, I feel, always sufficiently realised. The gap between revenue and expenditure is widening. The further contribution from taxation towards the cost of the war must clearly be the very highest possible, must cover the widest possible field and must soon be made. There must also be strict curtailment of unnecessary consumption, and in addition there must be a continuous flow of savings from large and small investors to the Exchequer.
I mention these matters in connection with this Vote, because while we in this country have not failed and never will fail to make full provision for our war effort, it is imperative that we should always keep before us the necessity of maintaining sound financial methods and that we should be ready to make the heavy but necessary sacrifices. This, I am sure, the Committee will feel is vital, not only for the purpose of waging the war, but also because, at the end of it, we want to emerge financially strong and thus ensure some reasonable prospects of decent conditions and tolerable lives for the people of this country.

Mr. Stokes: Before the Chancellor concludes, will he tell the Committee exactly what is included in that figure of expenditure in respect of the Debt service?

Sir K. Wood: No, I could not give the hon. Member that figure.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not of the order of £1,000,000 a day?

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure that, in spite of other preoccupations, the Committee has listened with profound interest to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The figures to which he has referred exceed any which this country has ever had to face before. I think I

am right in saying that the total of our outgoings on this war at the present time is substantially above anything recorded during the last war. The Committee will have heard with deep attention the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and hon. Members will, I am sure, from now onwards weigh very carefully the grave and important considerations which he has laid before us. I confess I wish he had gone a little further and told us how far the Government have weighed up and balanced the whole economic and financial situation. His concluding words lead one to hope that at a very early date the right hon. Gentleman will make such a summary as I have suggested, and present it to the House of Commons. We want to know what prospect he foresees in connection with the expenditure of the country; to, what extent he thinks we can raise these vast sums out of taxation; how far there will remain borrowings to be made, and in so far as those two methods do not cover the whole field, whether there are any sums which can be raised otherwise, without bringing upon this country a serious condition of inflation.
When that times comes, and I hope it will be soon, because there is no time to be lost before laying before the country what is required, I believe that the country will respond without hesitation to what is demanded of it. If we are to carry this war to victory, there can be no havering about the means by which it has to he done. I believe that the country will respond, and respond generously, both by meeting the taxation burden which the Government put upon it and by putting aside money from incomes towards loans; but the country does want a whole picture of what it has to face. It wants a picture of how the burden is to be distributed as a whole, and it wants to know how far what is being done now by the lending of money does carry the problem away from the dangerous seas of inflation. I hope that the Chancellor will not delay long before making that statement, and that he will give us the information which the country desires, and give the opportunity to all the people of this country to shoulder the burden which alone can carry us to victory.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: The Committee have heard with great


interest the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and heard it with mixed feelings, but I think that it is satisfactory to know that the war expenditure of the country is now running at the rate of somewhere between £3,000,000,000 and £3,500,000,000 a year at least, which represents a very marked increase in the war effort and in potential production from the time when we last reviewed the finances of this country in this House. The Chancellor reminded us, and quite properly, that the difference between the total expenditure and the revenue, particularly the tax revenue, was increasing, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. PethickLawrence) said the country would like to know the whole position as soon as possible. I am bound to point out that it is not possible on the information now before the country to do more than make an estimate of what our actual requirements and necessities will be.
As I have said, the expenditure is running at the rate of between £3,000,000,000 and £3,500,000,000 a year, but the tax revenue still remains, as far as we know, at the figure of £1,234,000,000 of the last Budget. We do not know what the total tax revenue will be when the right hon. Gentleman makes an addition for the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax and when he lets us into the secret of the rate at which the Purchase Tax is to be levied. If we adopt what seems to be the general estimate with regard to these two items, it would appear that the total tax revenue for this year is likely to be of the order of £1,400,000,000, and that indicates clearly that the right hon. Gentleman will have to make some proposals of a far-reaching character; and even with the magnificent effort of the War Savings Movement, which seems to be going from strength to strength, it seems that there will have to be a considerable diminution and contraction in the consumption of this country if we are to make both ends meet on the expenditure which he has indicated. But I share the belief which he has just expressed that the country will be quite prepared to shoulder any burden which they are asked to undertake.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: The Chancellor has told us how necessary it is that further sums should be subscribed to the National War Loans and has also

—not that we needed telling—implied what heavy burdens of taxation we shall have to bear. I cannot help feeling that in some respects our financial policy recently has caused some anxiety and has made some of us wonder whether all the wisdom which we should desire is being brought to bear upon our problems. The national loans of this country are a first mortgage upon all its assets. One of the country's main assets is the industrial asset. By legislation in this House we have declared that to the same extent that all our man-power is to be available to the State in order to win this victory, so all our property is equally available to the State to win this victory, and it seems to me that some better management, some better direction of our financial policy, could have avoided the very severe fall in values which has recently taken place in the City.
I should like to remark, in passing, that there is sometimes a tendency in this House and outside it to believe that when one speaks of matters in which one is supposed to be interested one is biased. In answer to that, I would say that I have always felt, and still feel, that on many occasions it would be better if criticism came from those persons who are at any rate closely associated with the things they criticise. For example, some people want trade-union reforms. The best people to recommend trade-union reforms are the trade-union leaders. In the same way, I think that if one feels that some different or amended policy is necessary in the City, it is perhaps not to be regretted that those who work there should make that point. At no time in my recollection, within the last 30 years, has there been so small a speculative position—in fact, there practically is none—as there is to-day. So that is not the cause. I also, as I said before, feel convinced that with a policy such as we have to-day, which is definitely a controlled and managed policy, you run a great element of risk if you strictly control one end and take no care to adjust or ease the other end. But that appears to me to be what has happened recently.
There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. There is at present a great deal of criticism of the banks and of our banking system. It is a matter which I do not wish to enter into to-day—there are obviously two sides to the question—but we have in this country


what is regarded in the world at large as probably the best banking system which exists, even if it is not perfect, and it is part, and must be part, of our machinery of victory. Therefore, it is deplorable when one reads in the public Press a most mischievous article which appeared in the "Daily Mirror" on 4th July under the heading of "Cassandra," which was extremely ignorant, extremely ill-informed, and, if one may use that expression with reference to financial matters—and I think one could rightly use it to-day—subversive. I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Information to that article.

Hon. Members: What did it say?

Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): It said the banks were not doing their part.

Sir I. Albery: Read it.

4.27 p.m

Mr. Benson: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find the Committee raising any difficulties, about granting this credit of £1,000,000,000, but I think we are entitled to ask on what terms a very considerable portion of that sum is likely to be raised. I am referring now to the rate for Treasury bills. It is a matter which has been raised not once but 20 times in the House since the beginning of the war, and it is a matter upon which the House has never as yet had a satisfactory answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either the present Chancellor or his predecessor. We are paying slightly over 1 per cent. for our Treasury bills, whereas before the war Treasury bills were discounted at considerably less than 1 per cent. When the point has been raised before, the previous Chancellor, then Sir John Simon, used to give cloudy, misty answers in which he said that a very large number of factors were involved. As a matter of fact, it is not true. There is one factor and one factor alone involved in the rate we have to pay for Treasury bills, and that is the re-discount rate at which the bill market can get its money from the banks, and that in itself is a purely artificial rate. The re-discount rate is a rate agreed upon between the Treasury and the banks, and I want to know why the Treasury, which agreed to

a re-discount rate of ½ per cent. before the war, has now agreed with the banks to increase it to 1 per cent.
In the first six months of the war the cost of that extra ½ per cent., irrespective of any increased borrowings, was more than £3,000,000, and as we shall he borrowing continuously larger and larger sums on Treasury bills, that £3,000,000 in six months, representing £6,000,000 a year, will grow. After some nine months I think we are entitled to a clear and definite explanation from the Chancellor why the Treasury has agreed with the banks that the re-discount rate shall be 1 per cent., because it means a definite present of ½ per cent. to the banks. The money that the banks utilise is not bank money; it is purely artificial money. It is created money, and the Treasury themselves are the controllers of the amount of that money which is available for re-discount. They can put the banks in funds by open market operations to any extent they like.
The banks are not so much creators of this money as the conduits. The money that we borrow on Treasury bills is, in fact, the credit of the country, and is not a credit of the banks. The banks are merely the machinery that makes it available. The banks themselves can make it available only if the Treasury, by open market operations, puts them in funds. There is no reason at all why the re-discount rate should not go down to A- per cent., or, if our issue of Treasury bills increases beyond a certain point, to ¼ per cent. On this question of Treasury bills, it ought not to be regarded as an interest rate, but as a remuneration for services performed, and that remuneration ought to be cut down to a reasonable limit. We had far fewer Treasury bills before the war, and the banks received only ½ per cent. Now that tender bills amount to between seven and eight hundred million pounds they should not be allowed to charge 1 per cent. We have had no explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far, and I hope that he will give us one as to why this indefensible bargain has been struck between the Treasury and the banks.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I rise to put two points. I would like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery).


I believe that much of the depreciation on the Stock Exchange, particularly of railway and industrial stocks, could have been prevented, had the policy of the Government been somewhat different. I make a special point of this matter. When my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Sir John Simon, as he then was, raised the proposal of a Purchase Tax, I firmly believed that the beginning of the depreciation in our securities was caused through the suggestion of that tax. It is important that we should not promote unnecessarily depreciation of our securities, because upon those securities we are able to borrow money from the banks and thereby to raise credits to subscribe to Government loans. I say now that I regard the Purchase Tax as a mistake and that I do not believe it will ever see the light of day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the earliest opportunity of clarifying the position, so that the country may know whether or not the proposed tax is likely to be placed on the Statute Book.
I come to my second point. My right hon. Friend made reference to the expenditure with which the country is confronted. We are expending to-day approximately £3,500,000,000 per annum. He has already warned the country that still heavier burdens of taxation must be expected. I cannot help feeling that it is unwise to lead the country to believe that it is possible to raise by taxation an amount very much in excess of that which is being raised to-day. How much will it be possible to raise by further direct taxation? One must bear in mind that, if my right hon. Friend taxes the whole of the income of all the people in our land in excess of £2,000 a year, he will raise only £60,000,000, a very small contribution towards that £3,500,000,000 that we are spending to-day. I reiterate that it is not wise to lead the country to believe that this war expenditure can be raised to any great extent by direct taxation. We know full well that it will have to be raised in the main by loans, and on that account it is essential that we should, by all means at our command, keep the cost of our borrowing at the minimum possible rate of interest.

4.34 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I wish to support the plea put forward by

the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and I would impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he really must produce for us a careful and reasoned answer to the case which has been presented so ably, though briefly, by the hon. Member, one which has been presented over and over again in all parts of the House at Question Time. Although it is a complicated question, it seriously troubles the minds of a great many people who will, perhaps, never be able to understand all its intricacies. This is one of the influences which, I believe, are damaging the morale of this country at the present time. This kind of question goes on being asked, and no answer is being given to it, except elusive answers which arouse interest just because they are so cleverly elusive. No serious answer is given to a case which seems to be absolutely irresistible. We have been asked to sacrifice for democracy; if this were really a 100 per cent. democracy, this kind of thing could not happen. You could not have a case of this kind put forward by hon. Members in this House, never answered, and treated as though it were a matter not requiring an answer.
We are asking that this rate of interest of 1 per cent. should come down to ½ or ¼ per cent. There seems to be no reason why this extraordinary and costly policy should continue, and no serious answer is ever given to us. I believe that one thing is certain; we are determined that in and through this war we shall break the power and the control of the little group of gentlemen who work so harmoniously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as long as they like him, but over whose comings and goings he expresses himself incompetent to exercise any control; which means that he can arrange anything with them, but that this House and this Committee have no control over the matter at all. It is very strange, but every time a Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I have no control over them," he is really saying that the people of this country have no control over them. That sort of thing is not to go on at the end of this war. The sooner we show the people of this country that in matters of this kind the policy of this country is to be determined differently after the war, the better it will be for our morale. The longer the arguments which people expect to be


answered are left unanswered, the worse it will be for our morale. May I say one thing to Members of the Labour party who are on the Treasury Bench? If the country sees that their presence in high places in this Government has made no difference to the habits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of other Ministers, and no difference to the answers which these Ministers give, we shall begin to wonder what purpose their presence is serving in the machinery of government. I appeal to them to use their influence in putting these points more forcefully to Ministers.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: We are asked to vote the biggest credit that has ever been known in the history of this country. I do not think that anybody will complain about that. I remember being told that the Government were not spending enough money on the war effort, but evidently they are now spending more money, and no complaint can be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that he could not expect revenue to keep up with that expenditure; I want to say a few words on that subject. As I understand it, the revenue is the result of the reasonable taxation of the people to meet the financial state of the country, but a point comes, in modern war finance, when it is almost impossible to raise taxation sufficient to meet expenditure by that means. Therefore, we pass to another question: Where is the money to come from? Hitherto we have taken the line that loans and payment of interest on them should be the way to get the money, but this method should be swept away altogether. The interest on loans has accumulated until we have at the present time a National Debt of over £8,000,000,000.
We are now proposing to borrow £1,000,000,000. At the end of the war we shall be faced with that enormous mass of debt, and yet, I would remind the Committee, Parliament passed an Emergency Powers Act enabling the Government to conscript, not only all manpower for any purpose, but to conscript wealth. I believe that the Government are afraid to do it. We are going to borrow, and to pay a percentage on the borrowed money to the very rich people who, at the end of a war, are usually far better off than when the war started.

[An HON. MEMBER: "How can they be?"] All right, but I say that the time has come when there is no need to create loans. I propose to make a suggestion, which I hope will be carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The suggestion is that he takes all he reasonably can by way of taxation. In regard to the remainder, he should put it on to the banks, with the money that has been created by the war effort, and get the public to pay it back some time or other. In place of the interest, we should only have to meet the actual money expended. That would simply be a book-keeping transaction. We must face up to this issue firmly, because there is no question but that the country is right behind the war effort, and whatever money is expended there will never be any complaint.

Mr. Wragg: Would the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Tinker: No, I want you to listen to me on this matter. The people want to know why we are going on asking for borrowed money. There is no need to borrow this money. The country is behind this war effort. It is not like the last war, when we had to borrow money, buy War Savings Certificates and have different kinds of loans in order to show that the people were behind us. There is no need for that now. The people are behind us 100 per cent. The people are saying that if labour has to be conscripted wealth should be conscripted, and I see no reason why that should not be done. We do not want this silly method of borrowing money with interest, and then paying it all back afterwards, because the burden is on the shoulders of the working class all the time. Mr. Chancellor, you are always orthodox—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Tinker: Through you, Sir Dennis, I wish to address the Chancellor. At the moment he is not enjoying a very good reputation in the country. There is a chance for him now of establishing his name if he will follow the example which I am giving him.

4.47 p.m

Mr. Loftus: We all realise that we are dealing with a colossal sum. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) said that taxation has


nearly reached its limit. That means that an immense sum must be borrowed. The point is, Where is the money to come from? It can only come from genuine savings, and as regards genuine savings I would certainly give 2½ per cent. or even 3 per cent. interest, but I doubt whether any hon. Member thinks that genuine savings would actually bridge the gap. There must be created money to bridge the gap. We know that most of the National Debt consisted of created money lent by the banks to customers, who again subscribed that money to the Exchequer. Last November there was on article in the "Economist," headed "The Technique of Inflation," which warned the country that in this war we must not follow the same technique as was followed in the last war. We must not have bank-created money lent to customers and burdening the country with 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. The "Economist" strongly urged the Government to utilise genuine savings with a fair rate of interest. Will the Government do that with the joint stock banks and charge them ½ per cent., which was the figure mentioned by the "Economist"? Something on those lines will have to be used if we are to refrain from burdening the nation with an intolerable debt in future.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): I rather hesitated to intervene in this Debate with the financial experts, but I would remind the Committee that there is an old story to the effect that once upon a time the mouse was of assistance to the lion, and if I can place one or two facts before the Chancellor for his consideration, I will have served my purpose. The Chancellor seemed very pleased at being able to state that this was a Vote for £1,000,000,000. He said they were striking figures. But I would say that the Committee and the House in the past have never been so much concerned with how much we were spending on our war effort as to whether that expenditure was wise and safe, whether it was producing the articles necessary for the victory that we all desire. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench suggested, I would have liked the Chancellor to have expatiated on the measures to be taken by the Treasury in the future with regard to this expenditure.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that we want to avoid anything in the nature of wasteful expenditure such as those items of wasteful expenditure which have been brought before the House from time to time. I would like to know, with regard to the present circumstances and with regard to this Vote, whether the Treasury are adopting the same methods of control or whether they have in view any new methods of control with regard to the various War Service Departments, so that they can have not only their own advisers but the expert advice of those concerned with the Departments in order that the expenditure of this national finance will not be wasteful. I say that because the point was raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) with regard to an article which appeared in the "Daily Mirror," regretting that certain sections of the community were being asked to make terrific sacrifices and stating that they were questioning what exactly the banks were doing in this respect. I read that article. There is only one reply to it, and that reply must come from the Government. They must make it clear to the public what exactly the banks are doing in this national war effort. It is true that reports, rumours and statements are being spread that the workers are being asked to do this and that, and that certain sections of the community have made contributions, and laudatory comments have come from the Front Bench with regard to the sacrifices that are being made by many sections of the community in handing over their savings completely free of interest. It is, therefore, natural that people in many parts of the country should express the desire that the Chancellor should explain exactly what the banks are doing with regard to the national war effort. As long as the Government and the Chancellor hesitate to make that point perfectly clear, so long shall we have those articles—and rightly so—in the public Press, and those opinions, suspicion and hesitancy in the public mind.
I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) when he was dealing with the question of direct taxation, and, as hon. Members know, this party has maintained a particular attitude for many years with regard to the question of indirect taxation. Even now we say that so long as there are sources of taxation


among people who have far greater wealth than they require for the normal comforts of life and for the ease and leisure of ordinary life, there ought not to be any further extension of indirect taxation. The hon. Member for Ealing said that this taxation would amount to merely £60,000,000. I would remind him of the words of the last Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council when he was Prime Minister, that every penny counts in this war. This is a total war—these are their own words—in which everything that the nation has must be put into the common pool. If this is a total war in which every penny counts, there ought not to be expressions of "merely £60,000,000"; everything—£1,000,000, £500,000, £l0,000,000 or £60,000,000—must be counted as of the utmost importance as a contribution to our effort. Therefore, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress has been made upon the lines that I addressed to the last Chancellor and which were answered by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
We have in this country a system of civil, judicial and hereditary pensions, involving hundreds of thousands of pounds. There are many people, such as ex-judges, who have lived in comfort all their lives, who receive what to us has always seemed an adequate salary, a salary which gave them the benefit of everything that can be provided in the way of comfort, leisure and ease, and those men to-day are drawing from the National Exchequer £5,000 a year pension.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss this matter of judges' pensions now.

Mr. Davidson: I am not moving anything, Sir Dennis; unfortunately, I cannot. I was suggesting—

The Chairman: But it is the hon. Member's suggestions which I have ruled cannot be now discussed.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask you for your guidance, Sir Dennis? Is it out of order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to this question, whether he intends to take any steps on those lines to assist in the expenditure necessary for the Service Departments?

The Chairman: Yes, it is out of order to discuss pensions which are a charge on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Davidson: If that is the case, I can only regret it, and await another opportunity to raise this particular question. I and many others—I could say the country—feel very strongly on this question.

The Chairman: I ruled the hon. Member out of order, and he must not pursue that matter.

Mr. Davidson: Therefore, I will not pursue it. But I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider those points that I have raised.

The Chairman: I have told the hon. Member that what he has been speaking of is out of order. If he persists, in spite of my warnings, in addressing further remarks on that subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall have to instruct him to resume his seat.

Mr. Davidson: Sir Dennis, I was not referring to the later words that I used. I was asking the Chancellor to consider the points that I made in the earlier part of my speech, and I trust that I am completely in order with respect to them. I would, therefore, go on to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people in the country—often termed the common people—the people from my consituency and other constituencies, are whole-heartedly behind the nation, but there is one essential to victory in this war, in regard to our financial position, as in regard to any other effort; that is, complete clarity, a complete statement of the facts, and equality of sacrifice for every section of the nation.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We on this side are bound to support this Vote, but there is an aspect about which I and my hon. Friends and other people in the country are much concerned. In order to lead up to the subject, I must remind the Committee that at the beginning of this war this House agreed to forgo a number of Parliamentary rights which vitally affect Private Members' interests. I am not complaining about that; I supported the proposal as strongly as anyone. But we have been made uneasy, on behalf


of the people we represent, about one or two points. There is no longer an opportunity for balloting for Private Members' Motions or for the right to submit Motions on the Civil Votes. We are limited, therefore, to an extent that we never anticipated. Seeing that we are prepared to agree to this Vote, I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would give an undertaking on the question of the Royal Warrant—

The Chairman: If the hon. Member were allowed to pursue that sort of argument, he might introduce almost any subject into the Debate which is not relevant to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Smith: You will see, Sir Dennis, that on that point I am limiting my remarks as narrowly as I can. I have taken advice on the matter, in order to conform to the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House. I have been informed that, providing I limited my remarks to the narrowest limits, I should he in order. All I am asking is that we shall not be forced to express ourselves on this question in a way that we would have—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must act in these matters according to the direction of the Chair, and not according to any advice he may get elsewhere.

Mr. Smith: If that is so, Sir Dennis, it shows what should have taken place under the normal procedure. I have read up the "Manual of Procedure" and a number of other publications very carefully this week, and I find that it would have been in order to have raised this question before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. But I will not pursue the matter if the Chair thinks that it is not in order. I am limiting it as narrowly as possible, in order to keep within the Rules of Order. Having read the Rules very carefully, I propose to follow this course, unless I am ruled out of order. All I have done up to now is to paint the background; this is the point I want to raise. This is a serious matter. The Committee is in a difficulty with regard to this question, and if we are doing our duty to the people, we are bound to be concerned about it. We were told that this Royal Warrant had been submitted, and I asked the Prime Minister to give an

undertaking that the House would have an opportunity of considering it before it was finally adopted. [HON. MEMBERS: "What Royal Warrant?"]. I asked that before the Royal Warrant submitted to His Majesty by the Minister of Pensions was adopted the House, in view of our past experience, would be given an opportunity of considering it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would not be so ready to smile if they had had to deal with cases arising out of the last war, such as many of us have had to deal with. I want the Leader of the House to undertake that the Government will submit this Royal Warrant to a vote of the House. I want to dissociate myself from it completely in its present form. Although I support the Vote, I think that the Committee, before agreeing to it, should have an assurance that the Government will be prepared to consider the suggestion made in connection with pensions, under this Vote, to the soldiers who are now serving.

5.7 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I need hardly assure the Committee that I will take very careful note of the suggestions that have been made. I am a little confused by some of the advice I have received, especially from my hon. Friends opposite. Apparently they do not want any further taxation, and they are not so keen on borrowing. What course they want me to follow I do not know, but I will study their speeches. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for what he said about the Vote. He urged me to make another statement on the position, as I shall have to do when I bring forward further proposals to meet the present situation. I agree that those proposals should be made soon. There are many reasons for doing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) spoke about our general financial policy, and criticised it in some respects. So far as I could gather, the only definite point he desired to make, at any rate this afternoon, was with regard to the position of equities. I have had an opportunity of speaking to him and to others about that position, but. as the Committee will have observed from the reply that I gave to a Question to-day, the position has improved since


that matter was first raised; and I hope that it will continue to improve.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised again a matter which is very dear to him, and on which he put a number of questions to my predecessor. He put forward, with great force, his argument about the difference between the rate given to the banks before the war and that given now. If he will address a question to me, I will give him a considered reply. I have observed the replies given by my predecessor, and I thought they were explicit, but I will endeavour—not, I am afraid, with much success—to be more explicit still. The fact that ½ per cent. was the rate at which banks lent money to the market before the war does not mean that it would be appropriate now. It does not take into account several other considerations, like the general financial and economic situation, and the fact that the volume of Treasury hills issued to the market is now much greater. The lending rate is, in fact, settled by the banks themselves, but the whole structure of short money rates has to be considered in the light of all present circumstances. That, as I remember it, was the gist of my predecessor's reply. Some statements have been made this afternoon also about the position of the banks in relation to the general financial situation. I will study them, but it is only right that I should say that, at any rate in my belief, the banks have in fact given the fullest assistance, in close cooperation with the Treasury and other Departments, in financing the war effort, and in providing for the needs of the community during the emergency. I do not myself think—and I must testify to what I know—that there is any case for the suggestion that they are not playing their part in the war effort.

Mr. Davidson: The Chancellor has stated that he believes that the banks are playing their part. Does he mean their full part, and, if so, will he expatiate on whether the banks are giving the Treasury any special facilities with regard to percentage rates?

Sir K. Wood: No one can say for certain whether a particular institution is playing its full part or not. It is to some extent a matter of opinion. I have given my opinion. That does not mean that

the hon. Gentleman need not hold the contrary opinion. He is as much entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I will only say that I will carefully study all the observations that have been made this afternoon, and I hope that they will bring me some assistance in the very difficult situation which faces us at the present time. It will be my endeavour in any further efforts which I shall ask the House to sanction, and the country to make, to see that all sections of the community are asked to make a fair financial contribution, and I would express the opinion that it obviously must cover the widest field. I am not in a position to pick and choose. Every possible source that is a reasonable one must be open to us, and it is in that spirit that I shall approach my next task.

Mr. Tinker: When are we likely to have the Chancellor's considered opinion as to how the money should be raised—in a month's time, in a fortnight, or when?

Sir K. Wood: I used the word "soon."

5.13 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) put a question to me. I am bound to say that I do not appreciate its exact relevance to this discussion. It is obvious that there will have to be notice of such a question, as I could not reply to it without notice.
Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000, 000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war,
put, and agreed to.
Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidation Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SECRET SESSION.

5.18 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that strangers are present.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question put, and agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]